bleeding heart

"Real" whiners...versus...what? the fake whiners to whom you've aligned yourself? I of course said nothing about "evil" anything. Again, it was your notion in the first place.. Then you were remiss, obviously.

As has been exhaustively pointed out, with more or less zero rational rebuttal, no one has benefited more from the progressive tax system and the related social safety net than have the wealthy. The sad little moanings about the terrible victimization is not credible to almost anybody....and only arguably to the whiners themselves, in fact. Your entire point was about who is "superior." Hence my apropos response.

I'm inclined to agree. Sure, America and Israel have blood-soaked hands (some people even go so far as to deny that much....underlining the excellence of the doctrinal system, and the efficacy of propaganda.) But there's no good reason to give Canada a pass, as some sort of elevated ethical entity on the international stage. Why? It's not by any stretch a given that this is "support for Israel" in a meaningful sense--since it's not self-evident that the Palestinian move is bad for Israel. Harper is "supporting" the wishes of the Israeli government, and perhaps intentionally aligning Canada with the American position...possibly for reasons made clear in my sig line. It's not as if it's likely meant as some sort of moral position; I would never totally rule such a thing out, but I don't see it as the norm in international relations, so I'm doubtful.

This summer, I bought a case of beer in an Irving gas station/convenience store in Shediac, New Brunswick. It's the first time I've seen this...but there it is.

Absolutely nothing. Fully half of society is made up of entitled losers, which is a fascinatingly misanthropic spin on an age-old elitist attitude. As we know, human superiority--moral and intellectual--can be measured exclusively by income distribution. That is, Paris Hilton is a far better man than you'll ever be. Also the late Osama bin Laden.

How long is long? There are more rich now than at the social safety net's inception, and they're also richer. We tried society for a good long while without the safety net, and that doesn't seem so great. Charity remained an insufficient means. So here we are. And also: what kind of "democracy" would we have where people couldn't "vote themselves entitlements"?

I would have disagreed with you right up until last winter. Always lived here, and always thought all-seasons were just fine. Got winter tires last year....and that's that. Much better, I must finally concede the point!

Speaking of annoying: Andrea. Maybe it's just me, but I keep actively hoping she'll get killed, preferably by having her face eaten by a zombie walker.

No, that's not accurate, particularly in the case with Venezuela. The country has always been an economic basket case, with terrible poverty. It wasn't one whit better in this regard under the preceding right-wing, anti-socialist regimes allied to the West/North. According to your implication here, it certainly should have been.

As I said--my whole point, in fact--is that countries have alliances; and there is no guarantee that such alliances will always last forever. I had foolishly thought this basic, undeniable truism, devoid of partisan politics and ideology, was totally uncontroversial. . But obviously I was mistaken. The ideologues will not perceive the lack of ideology....and so see everything as some sort of attack.' In this case, presumably, the perception is of "anti-Americanism," which is nowhere faintly evident. Political correctness sees insult where there is none.

Wow. I mean, I'm more than used to the fallacious talking point about the "leftwing media" to which we've been subjected to, without evidence, for many years. But now, i keep hearing about this monolithic entity called "the media," how unfair it is to the poor little most powerful people in the country; and how, in this even-handed battle between two ideological forces (Government and Big Media) , it's really awesome that the victimized government is "standing Up" to the rotten media forces that are trying to destroy it. Harper ignores the media? Excellent! Questions go unanswered? good on 'em! These Defenders of the Faith believe that "information" is what happens when the Government decrees (with total honesty and transparency, of course!) what's what. All questions, much less actual suspicions, are acts of hostility that speak badly of the media. And the media's proper job is to act as stenographers, and inform us of government "truths." Awesome.

"Leftist agitators," yet. Still a Red under every bed, it seems.

Is that a yes or a no? It's unclear so far.

Get with the program, BD: this Ford thread is supposed to be about Dalton's wrongdoings.

Bonam's post is so far the star of this particular thread, yes.

The HRC's are toothless until an official complaint is lodged. As draconian as I personally believe them to be, they don't have actual policing powers (good thing, too!). That said, we have to stand up for smarmy little creeps like Steyn and Levant; grotesque as they are, there should never have been any proceedings against them, as their remarks cannot be reasonably construed as "incitement." So they hurt some people's feelings? So what? i say.

Hear hear.

Yep. whenever you hear about 97% agreement...on any subject, bar none...there's something wrong. That's like Saddam Hussein's old voting records.

On the contrary. If they become a state...then they become a state. QED. The very fact that some folks refuse to recognize Israel tells you everything you need to know about that little matter. It is a state regardless of what its enemies might think. That's correct. And it's a perfect example of a double-edged sword.

Certainly. But as with the Israelis, it will not account for past crimes, only future ones, is my understanding.

This is silly, august, with all due respect. Surely you must personally know some Americans? Maybe even have American friends, as most of us do? They are perfectly civilized, lovely people, hailing from a varied, fascinating, complex culture. Plus, we're just like one another, anyway. In fact, I feel almost bad simply pointing it out; as it's self-evidently true (that Americans are "civilized"), pointing out the fact feels almost like "some of my best friends are...." But that's not how I mean it. I only mean that you're wrong.

OK..... ??? I'm trying, August, I'm trying. But I think you're thwarting my attempt. Maybe it's my own fault, I dunno.......

i agree completely, but like i said earlier, there's one important difference: the secrecy. Mormons--and Scientologists--are both highly secretive about key parts of their religious doctrine. Why? A Christian will, without blinking, concede that his faith rests on core ideas of the Divinity of the virginally-birthed man/God who performed miracles. And Muslims do not seem shy about professing that their Prophet, astride a great white horse, leapt from the rock of Abraham into Paradise. But bring up Kolob to a Mormon, and you're met with hostility; ask a Scientologist about Xenu, and "this interview is over!" So while the (to me) lunacy of many literal beliefs aren't terribly differentiated in a fundamental sense...the notion of being secretive about it, of keeping the "gentiles" or non-believers or believers of other faiths out of the loop is...well, interesting, and strange.

Just so.